Advocacy & Safety - Cycling safer than golf?

The April 2005 edition of the Journal of Neurosurgery:

Pediatrics carried a review of patients under age 19 seen by pediatric neurosurgeons at the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta between 1996 and 2002.

Sixty four of the total of 2,546 head injured patients treated had sports-related injuries. Less than 1% (17) treated had cycling-related injuries. Fifteen were golf-related.

The review did not attempt to compare relative risks by estimating exposure rates, but since children participate in cycling activities in vastly greater numbers than they do in golfing, it looks like cycling is safer than golfing. Or is it?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/22358.php


Golf-Related Head Injuries In Children Increasing Along With Sport's Popularity...

A few years ago I bumped into a page on the net where an insurance company was selling coverage to golfers

http://www.golfplan.co.uk/

The page said,

in 1998, 7,500 golfers sustained injuries to the head requiring hospitalization, 586 were rendered unconscious.

The updated page now says,

... statistics show that over 12,000 golf accidents occur annually; 30% of which involve head injuries...Can you afford to take the risk?

I guess that means there's been an improvement. Just half the head injuries 10 years later.

I had an uncle who was hit in the head by a golf ball once and I work with a couple of enthusiasts so I asked them how unusual this was. They said, not unusual at all. It's a regular occurrance.

So I emailed a writer for a golfing publication who thought it was was a good idea for a story. Eventualy she got back to me and said the golf industry was very tight lipped about the whole thing, didn't want any adverse publicity, and it was near impossible to get any reliable information on the topic. She dropped the idea.

Helmets to the rescue! Certainly a helmet of the type cyclists use would protect one from the injury of a flying golf ball.

Don't know if cycling is safer than golf, but it sure is a lot more fun.

Golf is really just a game of cow-pasture pool.

Helmets to the rescue! Certainly a helmet of the type cyclists use would protect one from the injury of a flying golf ball.

Gee I wonder if helmets will decrease the popularity of golf... I wonder if lawmakers will mandate helmet use as they did for cycling?

Gee I wonder if helmets will decrease the popularity of golf... I wonder if lawmakers will mandate helmet use as they did for cycling?

And nerds on golfing forums arguing about the merits of helmet use, or how it cramps their style! :roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

Helmets to the rescue! Certainly a helmet of the type cyclists use would protect one from the injury of a flying golf ball. We need someone like Tiger Woods to start wearing a helmet; weekend golfers would follow. Given the hardness and typical speed of a golf ball, a helmet might not be such an extreme idea.

We need someone like Tiger Woods to start wearing a helmet; weekend golfers would follow. Given the hardness and typical speed of a golf ball, a helmet might not be such an extreme idea.

What makes you think a bicycle helmet would offer golfers any serious protection from speedy hard golf balls? Marketing and advertising don't make a totem into a credible safety device.

What makes you think a bicycle helmet would offer golfers any serious protection from speedy hard golf balls? Marketing and advertising don't make a totem into a credible safety device.

probably the same reasons people think helmets are effective in collisions with motor vehicles.

Marketing and advertising are persuasive tools.

Cycling is safer in the long term simply because it's harder to drink a beer and keep a butt lit on a bike than in a golf cart.

Cycling is safer in the long term simply because it's harder to drink a beer and keep a butt lit on a bike than in a golf cart.
It's not at all difficult to drink beer on a bike, just put it in your water bottle or Camelbak. :)

What makes you think a bicycle helmet would offer golfers any serious protection from speedy hard golf balls? Marketing and advertising don't make a totem into a credible safety device.

I think it goes without saying that, if helmets were introduced for golf, they would be designed specifically to offer protection against the type and force of injury typically incurred when playing that game. You don’t see bike helmets on the grid iron or at the hockey rink or on the baseball field. Each sport has its own protection equipment.

Golf would, if ever the idea was considered seriously, need its own set of protection gear.

I have a friend who lost an eye in an auto accident. He looked up just as an errant shot hit him in the eye on the first golf outing of his retirement and lost the other eye. He still plays golf, however.



Cycling is safer in the long term simply because it's harder to drink a beer and keep a butt lit on a bike than in a golf cart.


It's not at all difficult to drink beer on a bike, just put it in your water bottle or Camelbak. :)

Piper, I think caloso meant that you can become more sloshed before the golf cart will complain by refusing to operate than a bike. As with a car, you can be pretty sloshed and still propel yourself a “fer piece” on a golf cart. I suppose it’s not impossible, but, the assumption is that loss of ability to keep ones balance will eventually stop you from riding your bike while sloshed.

In reality, there are probably plenty of over the top bikers who evade detection. I wonder if the aerobic nature of cycling forces one to keep breathing, thereby negating in part that effect of alcohol that tends to make one pass out (ie, the relaxing of the reflex to breathe fast enough to keep ones consciousness).

This could be a whole topic in and of itself.

Caruso

I think it goes without saying that, if helmets were introduced for golf, they would be designed specifically to offer protection against the type and force of injury typically incurred when playing that game. You don’t see bike helmets on the grid iron or at the hockey rink or on the baseball field. Each sport has its own protection equipment.

Caruso


fat lot of good helmets do in those sports



Something must be done about concussions
EPIDEMIC: Or are we waiting until someone dies?
David Pratt
Promise me one thing before this is over. Say you won’t feel sorry for Jarkko Ruutu. On Dec. 19, the New York Islanders’ Chris Simon slammed his skate into the leg of the Pittsburgh Penguins’ Ruutu. For that, Simon got 30 games — the longest suspension in NHL history.

Last March 11, Simon chopped the New York Rangers’ Ryan Hollweg in the face with his stick. That was worth 25 games, the secondlongest suspension.

Fifty- five games in one year brought Simon’s career total to eight suspensions in 15 years.

Simon has spent so much time at the NHL head office he’s now running a tab.

Let’s be clear about one thing: This new poster boy for violence in hockey is not the cause and he is not alone.

In September, the Orange County Register released a study that confirmed what most in the game already knew: Violence has resulted in an epidemic of concussions.

In the 2006-07 NHL season, players missed 760 games due to concussions — a 41 per cent increase over the previous season.

An NHL player is now five times more likely to suffer a concussion than an NFL player.

“There’s a strong possibility somebody will die from a head injury,” predicted Dr. Charles Tator, a professor of neurosurgery at the University of Toronto.

The driving force behind the violence is a basic lack of respect between the players.

It’s always been there, from Eddie Shore to Bobby Clarke, but the introduction of the instigator rule in 1992 added jet fuel to the problem and created an open season on star players.

Fourth liners such as Ruutu have one job: Physically eliminate the opposition’s most skilled players.

Thanks to the protection provided by the league, they are encouraged to do it and rarely have to face the music. Welcome to “the age of the rat.” The attack by Todd Bertuzzi on Steve Moore on March 8, 2004, can’t be justified, but the genesis of the assault began three weeks earlier with a head shot by Moore to the Canucks’ Markus Naslund.

Naslund missed three games with a concussion. Moore was never penalized.

Last month, Colton Orr of the New York Rangers knocked out Carolina’s Matt Cullen with a gutless blind shot to the head. No suspension. On Saturday, Philadelphia’s Steve Downie —suspended for 20 games earlier this season — sucker- punched Toronto’s Jason Blake. No suspension. Time to do the math. Thanks to rule changes that have eliminated much of the obstruction, you need a car to participate in a sport that uses more speed.

There is no “out of bounds.” Every player carries a stick and the equipment that was originally designed to protect is now used as a weapon.

In 1980, the average NHL player stood 5-foot-11, 188 pounds. Today that player stands 6-foot-2, 214. As a result the league now has more injuries than an episode of ER.

Chris Simon will not be in the lineup tonight to play the Canucks but he could be back by as early as Feb. 21 — and as fate would have it, the Islanders play Ruutu and the Penguins five days later.

For the Spam-brains who run this league it’s business as usual — that is, of course, until a player finally winds up in the morgue.

David Pratt can be heard weekdays, 3-7 p.m. on TEAM 1040 AM.

Concussions are worse now than before when no one wore them because according to the Canadian Medical Journal, helmets cannot prevent concussions

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/177/1/25


...Participants, wearing only gloves and helmets, knock one another about the head ... the primary concern is concussion.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=05z2z2IYqXY

http://youtube.com/watch?v=du_qiQ96ddk&feature=related

from Safehockey.com, What Every Parent and Athlete Should Know About Sports Concussion,


Few people know that before players started wearing helmets concussions were almost unheard of and unknown in hockey. So why and how could a device that is supposed to protect players' heads actually be contributing to head injury? Simple: head hits. Our brains are protected inside a hard outer covering of bone, the skull, which is our own natural helmet. Between the skull and the brain is a layer of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) that suspends the brain inside the skull. The CSF acts as a shock absorber, allowing for some movement of the brain before it bumps into the bone. There are two common types of injury to the brain in sports: Acceleration-Deceleration and Rotational. Acceleration-Deceleration Injury usually happens when the athlete's head and body are traveling at a certain speed and then abruptly stop. When this happens, the brain will hit the inside of the skull and brush against bony structures damaging delicate brain tissue. Rotational Injury happens because the brain is attached at its base where it joins the spinal column. Hits to the head or body may cause rotational motion of the brain within the CSF. This type of injury often leads to shearing of the brain nerve cells.

Closet- Since you spend so much time studying the research on helmet use, I consider you somewhat of an expert, albeit possibly a slightly biased one. Does your research lead you to believe any helmets offer any protection at all for the user? Because it sure doesn't seem like it does by your words.

What about hard hats or sparring head gear? Are there some studies showing that construction workers and fighters are better off (or just as well off) without them? It seems awfully hard for most to believe that head gear doesn't help prevent (or lessen the severity of) any injurys in any activities. Thanks.

of course they do. I've worn one for 20 years

I just think people have mistaken impressions on the level of danger of cycling and an exaggerated opinion of how effective a helmet is.

I just think people have mistaken impressions on the level of danger of cycling and an exaggerated opinion of how effective a helmet is.

Thanks in part to your efforts many people would agree with that. Probably most everyone here would. I understand that pointing this out is your passion and I also consider it important that people understand the limits of helmet protection.

Not to nit pic, (although this is the A&S forum:D) but I don't think it can be said that cycling is safer than golf based solely on head injury rates. You've shown us many times before that head injuries are not the most common cycling inflicted injuries.

Would you agree that a helmet designed for golf ball impact could be highly effective in preventing head injury?

Well, I've got to admit the thread titled has a bit of tongue in cheek to it, but, the study does show where one danger is noticed, in another place the same danger is not.

As for overall safety between cycling and golf, I think cycling in general is a better aerobic exercise than golf and results in better health for the individual and cycling, weather for transportation or recreation, is one less car on the road and if we can agree on a cycling incident creating less collateral damage than a motoring incident, that makes things safer for others, if not for the cyclist.

I have no idea if a helmet (that golfers would wear) would be able to be made to protect with any significance from flying balls. I'm not sure if the problem of golfers being hit by balls is recognized as something that anything needs to be done about aside from yelling, "FORE!" The question is, if this is the case, why is there such a ruckus made about cyclists if their rate of injury is the same or lower?

... I understand that pointing this out is your passion...

I would say the helmet thing is just a side issue to my passion that is pointing out how cycling benefits people. It has it's liabilities, but what hasn't? I mean wouldn't it be a like situation to insist everybody using knives at home to wear chain mail gloves to prevent injury? Justification for such a use could be something like, more people are injured and killed by knives than injured or killed on bicycles. Ridiculous? I don't know. What I do know, is that to cycle responsibly is to benefit despite it's inherent risks. What a lot of people think is that to cycle is to expose oneself to excessive risk that is unavoidable.

The thing with a flying golf ball is that it's fairly low mass... but all the inertia is concentrated into a small area when it hits, thereby causing a lot of damage... Any type of helmet would spread that force out over a MUCH larger area and thereby cause a lot less damage... same principle as a bullet proof vest.

Now compare it to the force transmitted to the head by either a car or hitting the ground at high speed... The amount of energy and the exposure area is already pretty much as large as it's going to be... at most the helmet will prevent some 'road rash' type injuries... MAYBE the crushing of the foam will absorb enough energy to prevent your skull from being broken (This does NOT mean that you won't still suffer brain injuries... the forces slamming the brain against the inside of the skull can cause MASSIVE injuries without cracking the skull!). The helmet is not, and CAN NOT be designed to significantly reduce the injury from those types of accidents. It just isn't possible.

IF you hit a glancing blow to the head and your body absorbs the rest of the impact (ie: a sliding type fall) then yes, a helmet will help somewhat... but no helmet will ever seriously help if you take a large portion of that energy in an impact to your head/helmet.

Cycling is safer in the long term simply because it's harder to drink a beer and keep a butt lit on a bike than in a golf cart.

Speak for yourself! :p

I would say the helmet thing is just a side issue to my passion that is pointing out how cycling benefits people. It has it's liabilities, but what hasn't? I mean wouldn't it be a like situation to insist everybody using knives at home to wear chain mail gloves to prevent injury? Justification for such a use could be something like, more people are injured and killed by knives than injured or killed on bicycles. Ridiculous? I don't know. What I do know, is that to cycle responsibly is to benefit despite it's inherent risks. What a lot of people think is that to cycle is to expose oneself to excessive risk that is unavoidable.

I really can't say I disagree with any of your points, but you have to admit that you probably point out the limitations of helmet protection more than anyone else on this forum, hence my use of the word "passion". I think it sometimes comes across as if you believe that helmets offer practically no benefits at all to the user. Your replies in this thread have helped me better understand your position.

If I state the case of the limits of helmet protection here often, it's in response to posts overstating their effectiveness or relevance to the topic at hand.

Why just on the commuting forum here someone posted a thread on the moronic behavior of some cyclists (riding on the wrong side of the road, no lights at night, drunk) and a couple of members posted about the lack of helmets being a factor when that has little to do with the problem at hand.

I had to quote from a page that I linked (called bicyclesafe.com) where it said,

*Wearing a helmet will do absolutely nothing to prevent you from getting hit by a car! your #1 goal should be to avoid getting hit in the first place.Don't confuse wearing a helmet with biking safely. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It's better to not get hit. That's what real bicycle safety is about.*

Too often the best way to deal with a problem gets diverted because of someone's feeling tat the end all of cycling safety begins (and ends) with a helmet

Just to follow up on closetbiker for a moment - I've been riding and commuting on a bicycle pretty much helmetless for over 40 years. I've never had a problem with people who opt for helmets or saw the need to make fun of them for making that choice. Jump to 2005 when I joined BF and started seeing all these threads where helmets are touted as a no-brainer to anyone who isn't a darwin candidate...in many cases by people who haven't been riding for even half the years myself and others have, but have had ten times the accidents! I appreciate closetbiker's attempts to put some facts and sanity into this insane debate. Indeed, I think the loooong running discussion between him and John Ratliff in the helmet sticky is a must read for anyone new to cycling or BF.

Lee Trevino was struck by lightening ... twice!; I never heard of any bicyclist that can claim that dubious distinction :)

I haven't seen any studies done, but I've heard about more people getting hurt by being careless around golf carts than getting hit by a ball. And between work and golf I put in over 40 hrs. a week on a local course.

A helmet is not going to protect the guy that broke his leg by driving with it hanging out of the cart. :rolleyes:

Lee Trevino was struck by lightening ... twice!; I never heard of any bicyclist that can claim that dubious distinction :)

I have.

from

http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/helmets.html


There are two important points to take away from all this talk of fatality and injury rates:

1. On a per-mile basis, the odds of being killed or sustaining a serious head injury while riding a bicycle are about the same as the odds of being killed or injured while out for a walk.

2. On a per-capita basis, the odds of being killed while riding a bicycle are nearly the same as the odds of being killed by a bolt of lightning (this author has, in fact, been struck by lightning -- albeit indirectly -- so he is well aware that "extremely improbable" is not quite the same as "impossible"); the odds of sustaining a serious head injury while riding a bicycle are about half the odds of sustaining a serious injury while out for a walk.

...I appreciate closetbiker's attempts to put some facts and sanity into this insane debate. Indeed, I think the loooong running discussion between him and John Ratliff in the helmet sticky is a must read for anyone new to cycling or BF.

Gee, if anyone can sit through it, my hat's (or should that be, my helmet's?) off to them.

I know I have a hard enough time dealing with John. I do hope it's worth something.

I enjoy cycling and golf.....and do both regularly....

Honestly.....I don't see how golf is any more dangerous than cycling. I've done both for years with only a few close calls on the bike and zero close calls on the course....

However, I've had to yell "fore" more than once while golfing....

:)

I bounced a golf ball off a girl's head in Junior High... we were on the field and she came and sat on the bleachers.... an instructor went and asked her to leave, which she did. Five minutes later she came back and sat on the bleachers again...

Ooops. The ball bounced 10 feet back up into the air off her head. They half-carried her off to the nurse's ... I'm pretty sure she had a concussion. I'd have felt bad for her if she hadn't already been asked to leave and then came back.